Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (7) TMI 280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to utilise the dealer network of the appellant No. 1-company, the respondent No. 1-company approached the appellants for distribution of prawn feed manufactured by it. Inasmuch as, the said venture did not turn out to be very successful, the appellant No. 1-company took a decision to discontinue its dealings with the respondent No. 1-company. In furtherance of the above, the appellant-company settled all its outstandings with the respondent No. 1-company and also gave an authorisation letter to the respondent No. 1-company to collect all other dues directly from the customers of the appellant No. 1-company, who had bought the feed but were yet to pay the price therefor. The concerned customers were also informed about the aforesaid decisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly, there was no response to the reply sent on behalf of the appellants and instead the appellants were served with summons from the Court of XVIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in Complaint Case No. 1142 of 2003 based on the complaint which had been filed by the respondent No. 1 on 23-1-2003. The appellants entered appearance in the aforesaid complaint case and upon obtaining copies of the complaint, they were surprised to learn that the same had been filed against the appellants on the basis of a personal cheque issued by the accused No. 11, K. Balashankar Reddy, from out of his personal savings bank account. The said summons was challenged by the appellants and the pro forma-respondents before the High Court on the ground .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ary that a cheque would have to be drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with his banker and if the said cheque was dishonoured, it would be deemed that such person had committed an offence and would, without prejudice to any other provision of the Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. Mr. Dave urged that in order to maintain an action against a person under section 138 of the 1881 Act, it would be necessary to show that the cheque had been issued by such person on an account maintained by him, which fact was absent in the instant case as far as the appellants are concerned. It was reiterated that the cheque i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed hereinbelow :- "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.-Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inst the drawer of the cheque. 10. In the instant case, the cheque which had been dishonoured may have been issued by the respondent No. 11 for discharging the dues of the appellant No. 1-company and its directors to the respondent No. 1 company and the respondent. Company may have a good case against the appellant No. 1-company for recovery of its dues before other fora, but it would not be sufficient to attract the provisions of section 138 of the 1881 Act. The appellant-company and its directors cannot be made liable under section 138 of the 1881 Act for a default committed by the respondent No. 11. An action in respect of a criminal or a quasi-criminal provision has to be strictly construed in keeping with the provisions alleged to hav .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates